Opinion: Reboots need to be smarter
Reboots, sequels and remakes are nothing new, but today it seems almost everything produced for the big screen is unoriginal.
Franchises such as the Marvel Cinematic Universe seem to go on forever, and the “Star Wars” franchise is milking out every possible film and show they can think of. But this trend did not start in the last two decades and has, in fact, been rooted in Hollywood for several decades.
Movies have been rebooted and remade for as long as they’ve been around, and the modern versions of these trends are getting a bad rap.
Most of the live-action Disney remakes are cash grabs at best, while their other properties just play off nostalgia. Other films like “Halloween” (2018) and “Blade Runner: 2049” are also coming back with varying success.
But unoriginal movies aren’t necessarily a bad thing.
According to David Wall, an associate professor of film and visual studies at Utah State University, reboots, remakes and sequels are not the problem. It is how they are approached.
There’s one franchise other movies could learn from when trying to improve reboot culture. James Bond is one of the most iconic characters ever. It’s almost certain that long after we are all gone, future generations will still be making Bond films.
At the end of the most recent film, “No Time to Die,” the words “James Bond will return” graced the screen, hinting at another revival not for the universe we know, but for another reboot.
According to Fatherly’s Ryan Britt and Ian Spelling, “Sean Connery gave way to George Lazenby, who gave way to Roger Moore, who gave way to Timothy Dalton, who gave way to Pierce Brosnan. And hardly anyone blinked an eye. The character, to a degree, is larger than any actor.”
No Bond reboot has gone longer than a six-year gap in between actors. Sometimes, the producers will only wait a couple of years before moving on to an entirely new actor.
For years, fans have been theorizing about who can replace Daniel Craig as the next 007. Many think this could be the chance for Bond to be played by a Black or female actor, but with the end credits message in mind, it’s most likely the former.
Still, while this could be great racial representation, it’s not definite. It could still be years before we even get news of the new actor which is no longer dependent on Daniel Craig’s performance.
And since Craig said he hated playing the character, it is highly unlikely he will be revived even if that has happened in past Bond films.
Other rebooted properties could learn from the “James Bond” films. They continue to reproduce as if the studios can’t help themselves (and they really can’t, but at least they’re trying). I say this because “James Bond,” like any other property, is immortal.
Shows like “Doctor Who” had the same potential and even inserted new actors as a part of the show’s lore, but recent changes have upset fans. With the newest female Doctor, fans and critics alike are not surprised at the worst ratings in three decades.
“James Bond is aggressive, masculine, hyper-violent,” Wall said. “The Doctor is very cerebral, isn’t he? And the emotion as well. He’s much less masculine. The Doctor wants to be in a world where problems are fixed by kindness.”
Despite negative reviews, having a female Doctor is a step in the right direction. Time Lords have never been defined by gender, so it shouldn’t be so surprising the Doctor would regenerate into a female after almost dying 13 times.
“I think it’s great that they have a female Doctor and they should have a person of color playing that role,” Wall said. “The Doctor changes who they are in that way. Why would a Doctor be a bloke and why would a Doctor always be a white bloke? It’s going to change in all sorts of ways.”
People have blamed the series for being too “woke” or “politically correct,” which can kill a reboot. These labels are dangerous and overused. In many cases, gender is easier to re-insert into a reboot/remake, while race is a lot more sensitive and more often ignored.
John Berger, a historian, novelist and critic, once said, “Men act and women appear,” in his novel, “The Ways of Seeing.” The underrepresentation of women in media should be compensated for. If it’s not done well, then at least the creators tried.
Disney remakes a film and tries to make their female characters girl bosses, without touching much on race or sexuality.
It’s too little, too much for a society that demands perfection. Audiences know when a filmmaker is trying versus when they’re getting a job done. Many reboots lack passion or heart because they are inspired by greatness. It’s difficult to rise above the past.
Bond, on the other hand, doesn’t have that problem. The evolution of the Bond films has adapted to fit the social climate, recognizing certain movies were made for certain people at certain times.
“The James Bond we see in 1962 is the same character in 2021, but the world is very different,” Wall said. “The early James Bond films throughout the 60s and 70s featured racism, sexism and xenophobia. These themes are not shown today in the same way because of our changed culture.”
Hollywood will always remake the content audiences have consumed before. It might be forced — like most Disney properties — or it will come naturally like James Bond. Either way, we have to be aware of the quality of the content we consume and hold creators accountable.
I don’t know who the next 007 will be, but I’m hopeful the creators will know what to do with him — or her. Afterall, they’re just fictional characters and we can do what we want with them.
“Godzilla movies are played constantly,” Wall said. “The mummy movies are constantly being remade. Some of them are great,” Wall said. “It’s not a problem necessary, it’s what you do with it.”
—
Megan Cowdell is a second-year communications student. She loves going on bike rides, reading mystery novels and watching cheesy movies.
— A02334008@usu.edu